Alliances, specifically the mega alliances cause numerous problems, the obvious just out right zerg down other guilds but also limitations of the zone they get another ridiculous advantage by cluster kicking people out of the zone in the middle of the fights.

As much as mindless zerg downed losses are frustrating a bigger problem is: the BZ is still simply way to small., the number of t6 and low end t7 zones should be out right doubled. Another possibility is have the caerlon gate "rebuilt" to say an all new "Avalon" continent for the S tier mega clans/alliances to fight over.

How is anyone arguing that NAP's is not STRICTLY better than what we have now?

It's more sandboxy, it allows for more drama to happen. IE, groups napped, grief eachother over a hellgate, they pop off, NAP is broken, drama ensues etc.

It causes them to have friendly fire in large scale fights. It's NOTHING but positives, unless you're a fucking lemming.

Because we already have NAPs and coalitions which means we're already seeing this friendly fire mechanic. It does literally nothing, how do you think we fight wars in real life? If you think friendly fire will solve anything you literally just forgot that world wars existed in the real world. We're already capable as humans to deal with friendly fire. We've been doing it for thousands of years through war. It's even beneficial sometimes because it ensures the allied zergs don't clump together. It easier to a more dense zerg !!

Capping or removing alliances will tilt the game further against new players. I'm against that.

I'd rather let alliances go back to being as big as they want without restriction or punishment, because then new players can easily join, benefit, and learn.

If any capping needs to happen, I'd rather cap the number of territories/zones a single alliance can control, while preserving point-sharing. That way, if a horde of new players decide they need fifteen full guilds working together in an alliance to achieve the alliance territory cap, they can do so.

At the same time, an elite guild could reach the same cap single-handedly, and have an excellent chance of winning the season, since all the points will be theirs.

Right now the size of the alliance mostly determines that you can hold more land, but its very very hard to take hideouts. You need to be able to hammer a t3 hideout with 10+ t8 hammers for 15+ mins for like 5 days straight. If you fail once. You have to start all over again. Its also hard to split and take multiple territory fights at the same time. So right now between squak and poe its basically only blue army and blue army freeman plus some black order. fighting cir, scoiatael and hammer and sickle. The other guilds of both alliancesare usually sent to do a secondary objective or battle. This is because of the disarray debuff. Where you have a constant almost 30% damage debuff and damage taken debuff. This is a time where tanks are being one shot atm. So you cant afford to not bring your best most experienced players to the major battle. Removing alliances will just have more groups of guilds with smaller debuffs. Better for the players fun in the battle. There will be friendly fire but thats something that will just kinda happen as its worked around. I could take or leave alliances but alliances help smaller guilds if they just learn to work together. The thing is the season point split makes people not want to be in a large alliance. But to have just enough to cover multiple time zones. A larger alliance allows for eu and na times to be covered. smaller alliances on only eu or na dont need to cover very many time zones. It matters most what a guild can "pull" for certain timezones. Some guilds can bring only a few people even if the guild says they have 300. No alliances would make guilds more elitest and I guess some decent or worse guilds getting boosted up because players cant all fit in one guild. Having them be more self sufficient rather then being carried by the leaders of the alliance.

Edit: Large alliances cant fight everywhere, Its just the mentality or guilds being scared to act. Little guilds and small alliances along the edge or even if they have no hideouts or territories atm can band together to attack multiple places at once. Picking away at areas till they gain a small foothold. Its not impossible. When you see more diplomacy starting up and people actually trying. You will see better results with your battles.

The post was edited 1 time, last by EnErgEstER (Feb 5th 2020, 3:59am).

Why not just reduce it to 3 Guilds per alliance. I also like the idea of redoing the royal zones and making that for the smaller guilds/smaller alliances, while letting the larger alliances fight it out in the black zones.

The post was edited 2 times, last by GoldenWaffle (Feb 5th 2020, 4:08am).

Even if there are mega guilds it will be a lot easier to fight a single mega guild than it is to fight 8 United mega-guilds in a single 400 man zerg.

Yes guilds will make Naps and handhold - but keep in mind that's what some of the current mega-alliances are already doing. By removing alliances Naps will be much harder to maintain (ppl ganking eachother, hg drama etc) and that will inevitably lead to more content which is healthier for the game overall.

U won't remove a sandbox element by removing alliances - U will make it a true sandbox game

Removing alliances is too heavy handed and won't solve the major issues. Limiting the number of players from one alliance in one zone and limiting the number of hideouts per guild will go a long way to mitigating overwhelming power while still allowing players to be apart of huge alliances if they want.

The only people who want alliances are in mega alliances. There should be a cap on alliances or no alliances at all IMO.

Alliances block off content for smaller guilds in the blackzone and even more now because gvgs are gone.

You are in a mega guild -- your guild will essentially have a MUCH easier time if other guilds cannot band together to fight mega guilds via an alliance.
If you remove alliances -- mega guilds who can easily field 100-200+ for a ZVZ will dominate even harder with less of an ability to counter them.

Imagine how strong your 300 man guild would have been if this was implemented earlier. BA would have 30% less numbers active right now.

The current Mega Alliance system has only hindered you. You are so drunk on your need to stack trash cans, that you are unable to see the forest through the trees.

In my point of view: alliances are a fundamental mechanic in the game to make Albion they way it should be. Albion is a sandbox MMO and in the game we have a market "managed" by the players; we have bandits that kill other player and steal they loot; you can take control of a city to collect the taxes from it and, of course, we have the politics in this game that is simplified in the alliances mechanics.

Its like in real life and in real life we saw great empires making pacts and alliances for a common objective, because thats the law of the nature: the bigger fish eats the smallers.

If you want to take our alliances, you can take it, that will not change anything! Organized guilds will make pacts and will work together for a common objective as they are doing now and all this crying will be for nothing. Insted of actually think in a good way to make things equilibrated, you guys just cry about something you cant do it: make something great and work with other great guilds to get better and better. BA didnt become strong from no where, CIR didnt become strong from no where, MG didnt become one of the biggest guilds back in the days from no where.

Anyways, removing alliances is not a definitive measure to make the game better, its a paleative measure to stop all this crying about alliances from ppl that cant make deals without betray each other. Just take it out and we will see what will be the next thing that the losers will cry about.

One interesting idea I had is to remove the ability to see enemy guild tags in the open world. In essence it would make it EXTREMELY difficult to identify coalitions since a normal person can't remember more than 50 people (and obviously you will not trust someone In the black zone saying they are your friend lol).

Not to mention this would make zvz's with multiple guilds a complete nightmare for coalitions to coordinate. (And don't forget the friendly fire!)

The post was edited 2 times, last by OceanSpirit (Feb 5th 2020, 12:01pm).

I'm mostly in agreement with the sentiments expressed in this thread (How to solve mega-alliance problem in three simple steps). Keep alliances as they are right now, because in my view the problem isn't the extreme size of them, it's the atrociously poor distribution of worthwhile objectives in the map, and the lack of incentives/disincentives for mega-alliances to stay away from the periphery zones and actually remain in the center to contest the more rewarding zones as advertised by the Devs. That the alliance tumors are this big is just a symptom of the bigger problem that nothing stops the POEs and the SQUAKs from just throwing their weight around and capping every zone and squishing down every hideout that isn't in their alliance, even if the hideout isn't in a zone they're interested in capping.

What should be hard capped is the number of territories an Alliance can overall own (probably up to 6, as mentioned in the above thread), as well as the number of hideouts each guild can hold (probably 1 or 2? number can be workshopped a little). The Alliance point sharing system needs to be updated such that 75% of all points earned from Territories and Castles get split between every guild in the alliance, with the remaining 25% going to whichever guild actually owns it. Double, or even triple the season points earned for Level 4 and above Crystal league wins. Force these handholders to actually use their heads and make hard choices for once in their life, instead of face-rolling the entirety of the black zones just because they can.

One interesting idea I had is to remove the ability to see enemy guild tags in the open world (except for zvz prime time fights). In essence it would make it EXTREMELY difficult to identify coalitions since a normal person can't remember more than 50 people (and obviously you will not trust someone In the black zone saying they are your friend lol).

Not to mention this would make zvz's with multiple guilds a complete nightmare for coalitions to coordinate. (And don't forget the friendly fire!)

I like it... Call it a "fog of war" the more players in the zone the less you see who are on your side and more serious the friendly fire up to 100% damage in a full zone.

And someone mentioned real life... Just google it. I would not say it has been "dealed with" well.

Place percentage of debuf according to the map tier, so that it is not feasible to send 100 men to kill 20, for example, because ON THAT map 20 they could kill the 100 through the strong debuf de zerg. just an example.You can make a thousand SBI changes, but your community doesn't know how to play without being outnumbered, you need to intervene.

The only ones that gain something with aliances are the biggests allies and guilds. Small guilds dont have any chance on the actual scenario.

The new update came with the purpose to allow small guilds to participate and play on black zones. That dont happen because big allies taken every territories, and dont let any to the small guilds. Without allies, guilds cannot expand their domains enough. This can oppen the black zones for more guilds.